I'm split about this. Is it good or bad? Should we only read and appreciate what the masses read and appreciate? On one hand yeah it would make sense, confirmation of the masses is a thing and not everybody can be wrong. But on the other hand everybody is different and different biases make for different preferences. When I read reviews on the web I always take time to read the negatives to see what they found as negative. Many times that's just bull (valid also about the positives btw), people having beef with whatever, but sometimes they point out interesting bits. And it takes me much less time to read such reviews (and I also learn more) than by watching the entire contents.
I also read negative reviews. But I trust the masses way more than I trust the professional critics. Good example would be metacritic for video games. I look up a game and immediately switch to the User Reviews tab or go to steam reviews.
